Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Thomas Shey]

Unless the DM is new, bad, casual or just a jerk there will always be a reason for anything in the game.

If the players can never find out about it, that doesn't matter in the least, because its indistinguishable from "just because".

 

[hawkeyefan]

So guess your talking about bad GMs here? Like when the GM says "the floor is red" and when the charcters walk into the room the GM says "Oh, the floor is lava!"

No.

Why are you making up nonsense examples when people have already shared reasonable examples with you?

If it’s a DC 20 Athletics check to jump a 20 foot chasm on Monday, the. It should be a DC 20 Athletics check to jump it on Tuesday. Or to jump another 20 foot chasm on Saturday.

If there’s some reason that the DC on Saturday’s chasm is different, then the GM should communicate that to the players.

Consistency is just such a weird word for a RPG.

Why do you say that? It seems to me to be a pretty foundational element of RPG play. The GM should be consistent in application of rules, the world that’s portrayed should be consistent… it comes up in all kinds of ways.

Some players will complain any time anything happens they don't like. So can the GM just say "there is a reason" and the player will accept it? I can tell you for a fact it does not work.

Maybe your players don’t trust you? Maybe that’s why it doesn’t work for you? Maybe… if your history of posting here isn’t some Ali G level bit but is actually an accurate portrayal of your games… you’re not a very good GM? Or at least, not for the players you have? Maybe… just maybe… instead of fighting every single suggestion made to you, instead if arguing against every example of play that works differently than yours… maybe you should listen?

I don’t know… just asking questions.

Because I can tell you for a fact that what I suggested does work. Especially if you go one step further and tell them why the DC is different. “oh right… it’s DC 25 because of the slippery conditions due to the rain”. That usually resolves the issue entirely.

There’s this impulse that many GMs have… and it seems particularly prevalent among folks who primarily have run D&D. I think it’s likely a byproduct of older elements of play… with the dungeon as puzzle and players marshaling their resources to solve the puzzle… and it carries over through to today even though that’s not typically the way the game works anymore.

That impulse is to withhold unknown information at all costs.

Anything that isn’t immediately obvious to the characters must be withheld until the proper step is taken by the players. They don’t find the secret door because they didn’t say they search the mantle specifically. Or they don’t hear anyone down the corridor because they didn’t ask for a Perception check. And so on.

This impulse may have its place from time to time… but as a default approach? It’s awful. There’s so little to be gained by it.

 

[gban007]

Consistency is just such a weird word for a RPG.

I think consistency is quite a key part of many RPGs, including DnD.
Such that rolling weapon dice is consistent for a given character and weapon. That fireball will do certain d6 per level each time and in a set radius without metamagic or the like.
I think most players would expect a certain level of consistency. I think dragonlance draconians are a good example of this. If a Bozak draconian dies by turning to stone, it is fair that players would expect that every Bozak draconian killed will turn to stone. If they meet a draconian that looks different, then they could expect it may die differently. This doesn't require the DM to tell them how it will die, just that it looks different (and all the draconian types do look quite different) to telegraph that things may go differently.
this is based on my dming in a general neutral arbiter type fashion, and playing with DMs who also DM in such a fashion, presenting challenges etc but running it consistently so players can enjoy the evolving story and being able to plan on basis of consistency.
Other approach is more adversarial, where a DM may decide that because the players are switching to ranged weapons to avoid a weapon being stuck for a minute, they will suddenly make the Bozak draconian explode with a 60 foot radius of effect. As a player, I would be aggravated by such a situation, and as a DM would expect my players to be aggravated as well. If you have a group though where everyone is on board that such things may change to heighten risks /tension or the like, more power to you, but if you have players getting upset, they may have quite different expectations.
I had one DM once who happily threw out the established 'rules' of the world driving to a TPK as the characters simply didn't have abilities to effectively combat the foe, as well as the DM making sure escape was impossible by any means. None of us players returned to playing under that DM resulting from that, and I don't think that makes us bad players. If he finds the right group of people happy to throw characters at foes to see who wins in differing adversarial situations, then he'd be a great DM, but he won't a good DM for our group, and certainly wasn't upfront about how he was going to run it.

 

[TwoSix]

I have definitely lost the plot of this thread by this point.

The thread has no plot, it just meanders around until it encounters something interesting. Classic sandbox thread.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quick pile of words for AW (and derivative) with respect to rules-light and rules-heavy.

The fundamental procedures of GMing these games are that you (i) frame your situations with soft moves which (a) represent the interests and facilities of characters/world while (b) presenting premise-relevant threats and provocative opportunities and then (ii) follow-through on those soft moves as play demands it (soft moves ignored, 6- result).

Now reduced to that core, that connotes rules-light; basically the bare bones of AW (Vincent's core layer #1 in the above). It is a game, it is playable, but there isn't a ton of "game to be gamed" there. While I like other Harper games, Lasers & Feelings is like this (with some of layer #2 in the above link) and I don't love that game. Despite that agile, pithy core, Apocalypse World is very_much_not this. Apocalypse World is definitely a rules-heavy game at its default (which includes at least layers 1-3, and probably the battle moves and custom moves of 4).

So a rules-heavy game that can be reduced to its core elements and functionally played (because the game is elegantly designed) isn't indicative of a rules-light game. It just means that you can play it that way or design derivatives off it and it/they will still be functional (if noticeably lacking and perhaps not particularly satisfying by comparison) as vehicles of play.

 

[pemerton]

The purpose of game rules (in any game, not just RPGs) is to constrain possible actions in ways that lead to interesting, meaningful choices.

Hmm . . .

In the context of RPGing, much of the constraints on possible actions come from a rule that is common across most RPGs: that players can only declare actions that pertain to or flow from their fictional position (ie how their PC is "situated" in the shared fiction).

More thoughts on rules in RPGs: Why do RPGs have rules?

Not to constrain people with different preferences into playing with our own preferences.

Agreed here, that would be an odd thing for rules to be for. Though it might be a thing that rules do (eg if I agree to play a game I don't particularly like, because the person I'm playing it with likes it.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

In the context of RPGing, much of the constraints on possible actions come from a rule that is common across most RPGs: that players can only declare actions that pertain to or flow from their fictional position (ie how their PC is "situated" in the shared fiction).

Maybe, depending on how you are interpreting 'fictional position'.

If you mean literal position, as in "No, you can't do that because your character is not in the room" then I agree.

If you mean something more abstract, such as "No, a wood elf wouldn't do that" or even "Your character has a 7 Intelligence and wouldn't think of that" then I disagree. While some people (apparently) feel that such constraints are fair, in most games (weighted by popularity) that's more a function of the table's agreed-upon preferences than actual game rules.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe, depending on how you are interpreting 'fictional position'.

If you mean literal position, as in "No, you can't do that because your character is not in the room" then I agree.

If you mean something more abstract, such as "No, a wood elf wouldn't do that" or even "Your character has a 7 Intelligence and wouldn't think of that" then I disagree. While some people (apparently) feel that such constraints are fair, in most games (weighted by popularity) that's more a function of the table's agreed-upon preferences than actual game rules.

Is being a wood elf or having 7 INT an element of fictional position?

A lot of disagreement about how D&D should be played (not all of it) seems to result from the fact that different people answer those questions differently!

As I see it, the general trend - but not a universal one - is to treat stats in D&D as mechanical only and not part of the fiction at all (so INT 7 has no more meaning than take a -2 penalty on INT-based rolls); and to treat race/species as not part of fictional position, but as a combo of mere colour ("I'm a wood elf - I have pointy ears") and mechanics ("I'm a wood elf - the falling rain drops give me the cover I need to invoke the hiding rules").

Once it is agreed that something is a component of fictional position, then it constraints actions. Not just physical location - though in D&D play that often looms very large - but what a character is holding/wielding/wearing, what language they're speaking, perhaps what some other character's attitude is towards them, etc.

 

[TwoSix]

Once it is agreed that something is a component of fictional position, then it constraints actions. Not just physical location - though in D&D play that often looms very large - but what a character is holding/wielding/wearing, what language they're speaking, perhaps what some other character's attitude is towards them, etc.

Agreed.

I'm reminded of a thread a few months back about the impact of removing any sort of racial mechanics or benefits from race/species/ancestry in a hypothetical 5e variation; one of the hinge points of that discussion was "Does the fictional positioning of a particular race (such as an elf being able to enter the hidden Elfhome refuge) count as some kind of racial benefit?"

 

[pemerton]

On consistency, I think I'm a bit of an outlier. But am happy to discuss more and work out if that's really the case.

Some of what is being said about consistency - say, damage dice for weapons and spells; or similar DCs for similar tasks - seems to me to not really get above the level of playing the game by the rules. So I don't see that so much as a virtue for a GM but more like the minimum required to actually play a game together.

Perhaps there are a lot of "games" out there that don't, or that barely, reach that threshold? In which case maybe I'm being too cavalier in regard to it.

But anyway, some of the other things being said about consistency - say, how draconians will work - seem to me to apply mostly to puzzle-solving play. (Eg the players are expected to work out that this particular monster type poses this particular challenge, and then to use that knowledge to help defeat the monster.)

But if we move to another play paradigm, then there's no particular reason why things have to work out the same every time. Eg maybe this time, when the monster dies, the GM spends a resource (eg a die from the Doom Pool) to generate and impose a particular consequence, like that the monster explodes. Of course it should follow from the fiction in some sense, if the game is to be fun and coherent as a shares fiction; but that seems a weaker and more pliable constraint that what some are saying about consistency.

Perhaps I'm missing something, or misunderstanding?